Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panhumanism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Panhumanism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research that does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator — I agree that sources exist. giso6150 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm seeing an awful lot of sources on panhumanism (including book-length). Could you elaborate on why you don't think it meets WP:GNG? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article as it is written does very little to support the notability of the topic. The lead and first two sections are devoid of citations other than a single article from panhumanism.org (from 2006) and an overly long quote from Carl Sagan. This could very well be a notable topic, but that it is not adequately demonstrated by the citations or this article's integration into the rest of the encyclopedia. giso6150 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines for deletion are clear that an article is considered notable if sources exist, so what sources are currently used aren't consequential in terms of deletion. A search for such sources are part of the process to go through before nominating. If the sources/text are so bad that it would have to be completely scrapped and rewritten, there's precedent for deleting per WP:TNT, but it would really have to be unworkable. If your justification is notability, the presumption is you've already looked for sources and found that they don't exist. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.